TARSAL CHEMORECEPTORS OF BUTTERFLIES 



187 



Corresponding to the 110 failures to respond in either position 

 1 or 2, 110 tests were made in position 3. In sixty-five of these 

 trials the animals still gave no response, but in the remaining 

 forty-five they responded. 



In general, the results obtained on Vanessa were not so striking 

 as those obtained on Pyrameis. This was probably due, in a 

 large measure, to the greater proclivity for death feigning in 

 Vanessa. But other factors were also concerned. Thus, in 

 experiment 11, table 3, the results were almost uniformly nega- 

 tive. In fact, the animals were so unresponsive that the experi- 

 ment was discontinued after the first day. When compared with 



Fig. 3 Graph showing relative proportions of responses (R) to no responses 

 (NR) obtained from specimens of Vanessa, when tested in positions 1, 2, and 3 

 on the apparatus shown in figure L The shaded areas represent no response; the 

 clear areas, response. Animals which responded in position 1 were not tested in 

 position 2, and those responding in position 2 were not tested in position 3. 



experiments 9 and 12, table 3, it is clear that some general con- 

 dition peculiar to experiment 11 affected the behavior of all the 

 animals in it. I find nothing in my notes to indicate what this 

 condition may have been, but, in the light of subsequent work, 

 lower temperature, age of animal, and previous feeding activities 

 may be suggested. 



While the results on Vanessa are, in some respects, less strik- 

 ing, they, nevertheless, show clearly that the same conditions 

 which obtain in Pyrameis also obtain in this species. Thus, 

 there is a clear response to distance chemical stimulation. Ani- 

 mals failing to respond to distance stimuli, generally do the same 

 when the second tarsi are in contact with distilled water. The 

 contact stimulus of applejuice on the second tarsi, however, 



